Arizona Supreme Court Rejects Immunity in Mohave County Ballot Case

Arizona Supreme Court Dismisses Immunity Request in Ballot Counting Case

The Arizona Supreme Court recently delivered a decisive ruling against Mohave County Supervisor Ron Gould, denying his plea for preemptive legal immunity concerning the hand counting of ballots. This development concludes a contentious period marked by legal claims and political implications surrounding the vote counting process in the state.

Gould's attempts to secure immunity were ultimately rejected, affirming an earlier appellate court's decision that indicated he lacked the legal standing necessary to pursue such a request. The core of Gould's argument revolved around whether a county supervisor might execute a hand count without the threat of legal repercussions from Attorney General Kris Mayes. Mayes has cautioned that such actions could potentially lead to criminal charges.

Expressing his dissatisfaction, Gould commented, “I believe it was because she didn’t arrest me. So, apparently, she’ll have to arrest me next time.” His remarks to Capitol Media Services implied that he believes only a legal confrontation would clarify his immunity status.

The controversy surrounding hand counts in Mohave County traces back to the 2024 elections when the county supervisors deliberated implementing such a procedure. Initially abandoned, the issue resurfaced following support from board Chair Travis Lingenfelter, indicating a shift in the board's approach.

However, this renewed discussion triggered a letter from Attorney General Mayes that discouraged the board from proceeding, highlighting risks of facing serious legal penalties. Gould asserts that the warning from Mayes influenced Lingenfelter's eventual withdrawal of support for the hand count proposal.

In his legal challenge, Gould sought an affirmation that using tabulating machines is not obligatory, arguing that county officials should not be intimidated regarding their choice for hand counting. Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals concluded that Gould's lawsuit was unfounded, noting the absence of a formal vote on the hand count measure within the board.

Judge Michael Kelly's opinion emphasized that the letter from Mayes did not constitute a direct threat of prosecution and reiterated that Gould's claims were speculative without an official board vote on the hand count.

Despite the court's decision, Gould remains convinced that Arizona legislation does not require machine counts. He expressed uncertainty about future moves, stating, “I have a new board,” and weighing the possibility of pursuing hand counts against the risks of legal challenges. If conditions permit, he aims to seek a formal ruling on the legality of hand counting and the implications of prosecutorial immunity.

In a related matter, Arizona officials are anticipating an early and challenging wildfire season due to current drought conditions, with predictions indicating increased fire activity may spread northward by May.